🎦 Star Trek full movie HD download (J.J. Abrams) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Star Trek
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Storyline: On the day of James T. Kirk's birth, his father dies on his damaged starship in a last stand against a Romulan mining vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who in this time, has grown on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. 25 years later, James T. Kirk has grown into a young rebellious troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy academy instructors like Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency on Vulcan and the newly-commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of the legend begins. Written by Paramount Pictures
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 14773 Mb h264 16283 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 1636 Mb mpeg4 1803 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
Read Me Trekkies
I have never been so disappointed by a movie than i was by this bubble gum attempt at a prequel. I could have made a better movie on my camera phone. Whoever picked JJ Abrams to direct should be shot. In some interviews, he admits that he's not a star trek fan. Boy, oh boy, does it show. He's 'lost' when it comes to directing; he didn't get any good performances from his actors; It looks like all shots were done on the first take; he rushed through production; and a lot of short sequences in the movie went nowhere and should have been cut. I'm sure he was the one who brought the idiots Kurtzman and Orci to write this poor excuse of a star trek film. Their plot line had so many holes, it was like swiss cheese. I mean they took a massive icon that is star trek and were given the task of making a prequel, and this is the best they could come up with???

Young Kirk drives a corvette off a cliff?? Uhura kiss Spock?? Scotty stuck in a water pipe?? What the heck is 'red matter'?? Launch Kirk off the Enterprise in a pod?? Kirk loses every fight?? Scotty has a sidekick?? etc.etc.etc.

I am a Trekkie,(but not one of those weirdos) and hopefully I can speak for some of us out there who found this movie to have no 'soul'. You could have made a movie that was true to all the elements of the original and still do a 'reboot'. Have you guys seen "Batman Begins" 2005? That is how its done you jerks. This was just a cookie cutter sci-fi cgi movie with the title and character names from the original. I feel like you took everything in me that is Star Trek and spit on it.

I want my ten dollars back.
2009-05-09
Star Trek is Dead
I've been a Star Trek fan since 1974. Though I looked forward to this movie, I thought the choice of J.J. Abrams as director was questionable. Abrams was quoted as saying he was "not a huge fan to begin with" and that the series "seemed to promise adventure more than it would deliver."

Arrogant words from someone about to direct the eleventh feature film based on this series…and that's not counting four spin-offs. Despite Abram's opinions and the commercial disappointment of recent Trek efforts, Star Trek worked for a lot of people before he came along.

I saw the new Trek movie on opening day, and my worst apprehensions were justified. Just as troubling, critics are slobbering over this movie, claiming it's a "reboot" that both fans and newcomers will love. This fan left the theater vowing never to see another Trek movie produced by this team. Abrams took a series which I've happily enjoyed since childhood, twisted it into his own mass-market "vision," and insultingly claimed that it's a bridge between old fans and new.

Here's a breakdown of my impressions:

The good: • The movie was well cast and well acted. Main characters were more or less consistent with their original series counterparts (with one notable exception). • Little homage moments were great. Particularly good was the inclusion of Kirk's "solution" to the Kobayashi Maru test. • Humor was good (though I stopped laughing midway through). • Leonard Nimoy was excellent and his role was neither awkward nor contrived. • The space battles were exciting, if a bit chaotic. • The new ship, equipment and uniforms were attractive (though hard-core Trekkies may be unhappy with the often extreme departures from original series' art design).

The horrible: • The villain, though well cast, was utterly two-dimensional. It's difficult to understand why Abrams did not include the excellent prequel material that was released as a graphic novel. In the prequel, Nero was a decent man who tried to do the right thing. In the end, he felt betrayed by his government, by Spock, and indeed, by all of Vulcan. Worse, he lost his family when Romulus exploded. But we didn't get to see all that, so Nero comes across as a cardboard cutout villain whose only purpose is to serve as a foil for the heroes. Weak, lazy writing.

• Spock and Uhura necking like pubescent teens, and doing so in front of others, was simply preposterous. I'm not slavishly devoted to every detail of Trek lore, but the dignified, self-possessed Spock portrayed by Leonard Nimoy would never be romantically involved in that way, and even if he was, he would never kiss his girlfriend in public. In every other way, Zachary Quinto did a great job playing young Spock (though I found the more extreme emotional outbursts unrealistic). The sub-plot romance between Spock and Uhura was a juvenile, ridiculous distraction, presumably aimed at widening the audience demographic.

• Any respectable Star Trek fan can accept a time travel plot, even when it contains contradictions. But Abrams and the writers (who ironically claim to be Trek fans) use time travel to excuse their heinous molestation of Star Trek lore. Follow me here…Nero coming back in time and killing Kirk's father would only affect Kirk's childhood at that time. It wouldn't affect the entire universe (although Nero's later acts of destruction would). The writer's try to convince us that Nero is responsible for an entirely new alternate time line, before he'd actually destroyed Vulcan. That's careless, dishonest plotting.

• Small deviations from the original series' details were irritating because they were unnecessary. The most notable: Vulcan's sky was blue in the movie. Vulcan orbits a red giant, making its sky red. This large, red sun has much to do with the physical characteristics of the Vulcan people (great strength, being used to thin air and heat, pointed ears, etc.). It was irritating for the writers to pay so much attention to some details, and ignore others.

• They. Blew. Up. Vulcan. Are you kidding me? How sick do you have to be to blow up Vulcan and its six billion inhabitants as part of your plot? What's next? Will they shoot Scotty out the Enterprise's tailpipe in the next movie? I watch TV shows and movies to be entertained. The good guys should win, the bad guys should lose. There's comfort in knowing that there are certain aspects of a show that you can count on. Not anymore. Modern entertainment has taught us that no character is safe, no matter how central he/she is to the plot. Sure, they killed Spock in Star Trek II…but they brought him back in III. They destroyed the Enterprise in Star Trek III, but they built a cool new one in IV. In the new Trek movie, I kept waiting for the whatchamacallit that would set everything right. But no. Kirk's dad and Spock's mom were still dead, Vulcan was still gone. And this one plot point, more than any of the movie's other flaws, was what lost me.

I could bear most of the other annoyances in light of what was otherwise a fun movie, but it was clear that Abrams had no respect for the vast amount of back-story established by the original series. In setting such important material aside, he insulted the very fans who gave him the opportunity to direct this film. The effects were cool, and it was fun to see the crew come together. But in the end, I left the theater feeling betrayed. I'll always have the series and the first ten movies, but if this is the direction Star Trek is taking, they will boldly go on without me.
2009-05-10
The Lucas Syndrome invades Star Trek
Star Trek is not about the past but rather about the future. This new movie is not the Star Trek that we know and have loved for more than 40 years, is in fact a poor excuse to gain market and to reboot (erase) the series completely. The end result: what will happen with all the Star Trek after TOS? Is already known that this movie connects the Star Trek Countdown comics in order to create an alternative reality since Nero and Spock travel through time but not to our Star Trek time-line, but another alternative reality (SPOILER). Nero's effect on that time-line by killing Kirk's father does affect the alternative reality in this new Star Trek. In addition Spock's interference changes completely the time-line for this parallel (in such way) universe. So, what we are seeing is not our Star Trek but rather a new version of it. Not the best solution since there was a lot of great ideas after Nemesis. This is by far the Lucas Syndrome, "if you are out of ideas, then create a prequel."

(SPOILER) Romulus, Remus and a large part of the Romulan Empire get destroyed in the very late 24th century (see Star Trek Online and Star Trek Countdown) and the result is Nero and Spock arriving at this universe. The time-line here is completely different from our Star Trek, so what we know is no longer canon, since this is like a goodbye to our beloved Star Trek. In its place, what we get? Huge explosions, short skirts, sex, and a movie lacking of morality. Star Trek is not about that, is about a message, is about going forward and explore strange new worlds.

I'm afraid that this movie will eventually erase what we know about Star Trek and the effort of all the productions, writers, casts and all the people related to previous Trek series. I hope fans will realize that shiny explosions and short skirts is not everything... BRING OUR STAR TREK BACK!!! BRING TNG, DS9 and VOY BACK!!!

"Resistance is Futile."
2009-05-03
Trek fans avoid at all costs!
First of all let me start out by saying I am a Trek fan. I love the original series. Not the kind of fan that knows everything that happened to everybody in every episode on every stardate type of fan, but a fan nonetheless. The last few movies were dull and I never even bothered to watch The Enterprise TV series. When I heard a new movie was in the works I was very happy. Once I heard JJ Abrams was directing my heart sank (still can't forgive him for what he turned Lost into).

First of all the plot is so full of holes the whole starfleet could fly through. Why is it that a cadet crew (some not even cadets yet) are the only ones who can save a planet or two? The movie relies too much on visual effects and too little on plot. The effects got boring after awhile. The time travel thing has been done and done so many times it's obvious the writers can't come up with new ideas. Even if we are to accept this is some alternate universe/timeline, it still doesn't explain how Chekhov aged so closely to Kirk. In the original series he was only 22 and Kirk in his 30's. In the original series no one knew what Romulans looked like or that they were similar to Vulcans, yet it's common knowledge in the film. None of the movie makes sense. You have to have a lack of imagination to truly enjoy this film. Leonard Nimoy doesn't even seem like his old character.

I saw this with both trek and non trek fans and everyone agreed it dragged on too long, was boring & they couldn't wait for it to be over. Star Trek needs to take another long rest and any future movies must not involve JJ Abrams. This is not Star Trek reimagined, it is Star Trek rewritten.
2009-05-17
Money Talks, of Course. Anyone Surprised??
1) McCoy goes into an "alternative" past, marries a Vulcan woman and then Spock is born; 2) In another "alternative past", The "red matter", when manipulated in very small amounts in a quantum-related time-space, will permit that the Enterprise computer voice can procreate. Then, the voice and Spock give birth to Nomad (TOS). which by his turn mates with V'Ger (ST:The Movie), and the two enters into a black hole, carrying with them all the known universe. Well, time to reboot again... It's not that difficult to create options. (sarcasm intended)

About the performers, a hats off to Mr. Greenwood, a classic actor, always good and solid.

And the thing goes on and on and on, new gadgets, books, can be created and sold, etc. I'm not a trekker or trekkie, whatever, but, yes, a longtime and errr..."serious" fan of the series, since I was a child. TOS is still the best, by far, followed by TNG. Of course, this new movie is - only for market purposes - a 'Star Trek' one. They call ST a franchise, right? franchise is about profits, money. As another reviewer wrote, I suggest to those still with a brain in reasonable condition: leave it in the front door, in case you insist to watch this expensive nonsense. In an ideal world, it would be great if these Hollywood 'geniuses' leave the iconic works of the past stay at their own (recent catastrophic sequels or remakes including X-Files, The Day The Earth Stood Still, etc). Comparing the latest available Star Trek efforts, any Star Trek Phase II movie is better than this one. ST Phase II has passion and guts, also good and coherent stories IMHO. Give them a try.
2009-05-10
Set your phasers to STUNNING!!!
"Set your phasers to STUNNING!!!"

It was a terrific atmosphere in a jam-packed cinema … I was SO glad that I saw this at the Empire, Leicester Square, as this is a film that you'll definitely need to see on a BIG screen (preferably with a very LOUD surround sound system!)

This adaptation has "boldly gone" – much further, and better than any previous "prequel" that I've seen …

The action is non-stop … the story line is very strong … the effects are amazing … and of course there is also the "sub-plot" of the prequel factor – that let's you know how the main cast members first met and grew together as a team …

A special mention should go to the Director (J.J. Abrams) for both the way the film moves along – and for the superb casting of Zachary Quinto as Spock, Simon Pegg as Scottie and Eric Bana as Nero was a masterstroke … the rest of the main characters are also strongly cast and are young – suggesting that this team could be together in a series of films that could run and run …

This has certainly breathed new life into this already epic story

This film has cutting edge effects – Story – Music – Action – Aliens … what more could you ask for …?

This was a terrific movie – if you liked any of the Star Trek franchise (T.V or movies) then you'll absolutely love this ! – book your tickets now … !

I think that this is the best of all the Star Trek films …

This film has all the ingredients to take over a planet in a solar system near you …
2009-04-17
Incompetent writing, too loud, space western
My precognition kicked in because I grabbed a paper napkin from the popcorn buttering station before I went in. I rolled it into a tight cylinder, tore off two inch long pieces, and stuck them in my ears. Thank goodness I did that, because most of the soundtrack is running at 110-130 decibels. I did like the nostalgia of seeing representations of the original cast as younger people. While Kirk, Spock, and McCoy looked a fair amount like the originals, Chekov, Sulu, Scotty, and Spock's father didn't resemble the first actors. Ohura, didn't look too much like the original, but she was beautiful enough that I could forgive them that.

The story was flaky and dumb - far too much of the shoot-em-up and protracted car chase mentality. I got really tired of the already way overdone cliché of the hero hanging over a precipice by his fingertips, so it was nauseating to put Kirk in that situation FOUR, count 'em, four times in the movie, starting as a little boy, and then with a villain trying to stomp on his fingers in two of those episodes.

Far too much noise, far too much repetition, quite a few inconsistencies with the original story situations, more fantasy and less Si-Fi.

I'm looking forward to the next in the series only if they get rid of the two writers who did this one.
2009-05-16
What a production - cheesy bits forgiven!
There was no way that this reboot was going to avoid all references to either the original series of Star Trek or the other spin-off series - anyone going in to see this film had to accept that as a given. But any cheesy bits (of which there were relatively few) are blown away by the sheer beauty and bravado of this film.

I was a fairly big Trekkie in my youth, but in the last 10 years only really kept up with it by watching a few new episodes here and there and seeing the big screen outings (OK, I admit that I have all 10 films on special edition DVD - £47 was a bargain!) - but Abrams' vision here has me thinking the new franchise will be even better than what has come before.

What made this film special for me was not the story (remarkably good, bearing in mind that, like the first film in any new franchise, it's backbone was character development). What made this film for me was the....photography? Can you even call CGI photography? Well, either way, this film was a visual feast. The way that scale was conveyed was breath-taking. I'm not sure whether I read this somewhere or if I can take credit for it myself, but the difference came in the way that Abrams shoved aside the traditional Star Trek view of Enterprise as a lumbering naval ship and took a more Star Wars-esquire dogfight approach. This has set a high standard for a new era of Star Trek that I hope will spawn at least a couple more films.

It's not that I wasn't impressed with the character development, the acting, the script or the story - it's just that this film looked so gorgeous that I haven't been able to think of anything else since I saw it last night! But sufficed to say, this was overall an excellent feature. It might not quite deserve a 100% rating, but it's worth more than 90% in my eyes - so, by rounding up, it gets 10/10 from me! Final warning: see this film in the cinema. Do not wait for it to come out on DVD. It. Will. Not. Do. It. Justice.

JJ, you've won a fan!
2009-04-17
Disappointing
I'm afraid that's a big thumbs-down. Before I begin, I should fess up to being a dedicated Star Trek fan and Trekkie for nearly 15 years. And as to my viewership of the current output of the JJ Abrams/Bad Robot stable, I thought LOST Seasons 1 was amazing, and have stuck with the show despite a huge drop in quality. Fringe, co-created by Abrams, Alex Kurtzmann and Roberto Orci, has the dubious distinction of being pretty much the only TV show on which I gave up, mainly because I couldn't stomach such appalling writing. As the credits rolled on this Trek film, and listed Orci and Kurtzmann as writers, it all made a disappointing kind of sense, as these three guys have never met a contrived and incoherent plot they didn't love.

Unfortunately, 'contrived' and 'incoherent' describes the plot of this movie all too accurately. I will freely admit that there's a lot of stuff that I found annoying specifically because I am a Trekkie, but there are also fundamental flaws in the movie as a piece of cinema, with the plot being a prime example. It's badly-conceived and poorly written in the worst possible way, with people acting out of character, and to be honest, stupidly, in order to set up a chain of unbelievable events to keep the plot limping along. A good plot should not depend on shoehorned and forced events, and characters should be consistent, instead of acting merely to service the plot.

The science is woeful. I know we have to cut movies some slack, Star Trek was noted for being pretty accurate with the real-world science they used, but that's certainly not the case here.

Now to what annoyed me, as a Trekkie. Abrams has stated that he was never a fan of the original Trek, and man, does it show. He and the writers have only a passing familiarity with basic stuff like the command structure of a starship. It seems that, if the captain wishes it, lowly cadets who haven't even graduated from the academy yet, can be promoted to command positions, leap-frogging an entire crew of officers. At one point, I found myself wondering, 'Who the hell is the second officer, and where are they?' And as characters we know will be the main crew arrive on board and automatically take charge of their departments, it raises the question, who exactly was the senior staff when they shipped out? There's a romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons. I can't say any more without revealing the identity of the characters, but you'll know it when you hit it.

A major event occurs that will have a profound effect on both the Federation and the Alpha Quadrant, which I was not down with at all. It felt like Abrams attempting to demonstrate that nothing and no one is safe in his new shiny version of Trek.

The portrayal of the Vulcans was pretty inconsistent. While Zachary Quinto is good as Spock, the elder Vulcans are much too emotional. In one scene, a Vulcan chats away as if he's human. Ironically, the dialogue concerns the repression of emotion. And I'm pretty sure another Vulcan elder smiled at one point.

Simon Pegg does the best he can as Scotty, but writing that role as comic relief was a terrible mistake. The humour in general is very hit and miss. Trek was never about ridiculous comedy in the midst of a crisis. The funniest parts are what they lifted directly from classic Trek, for example McCoy bitching about Spock and his 'goddamn Vulcan mind'.

And as the last negative point, they also changed the iconic 'Space...the final frontier' speech. Two small changes - 'continuing mission' to 'on-going mission', and 'strange new life' to 'strange new lifeforms' - but they add nothing to the speech, and merely serve to again show that nothing is sacred when JJ Abrams is at the helm. Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years.

I'm going to finish with the good points, because yes, there are some. Karl Urban as Bones is bang-on, right from the get-go. McCoy's dialogue is in character too, mainly because they lifted it straight from the source, as mentioned previously. All the main cast are alright. Chris Pine as Kirk grew on me throughout the film. The biggest change of role is probably Uhura, who takes a much more active part than she used to, but that's not unwelcome. And the attention to details on the dates is OK. And that's about all the good stuff.

I would be hesitant about recommending this film to casual cinema fans, because at its core, it's basically a stupid movie. I would most certainly advise Trekkies to stay away from it. If given the choice between watching this, and watching the 3 worst Voyager episodes in a row, there is only one way to go. I'd plump for Janeway, Chakotay, Neelix and even Kes over this, and that's really saying something.
2009-05-06
Star Trek RIP
So Captain Kirk is now basically nothing more than a juvenile delinquent who got lucky? So Spock and Uhura are getting it on all over the Enterprise, even though she was apparently a student of his at the academy? Is Checkov now nothing but a clown? Has the Star Trek universe become nothing more than an endless feedback loop of journeys from future to past? Where were all of Starfleet's humanistic ideals--The ones that have inspired fans for generations? I got to the end of this movie and I didn't really care to see more adventures with these people. They looked like a bunch of LA mall rats running around unsupervised on Daddy's starship.

I did think it was cool that they got Mike Tyson to play the Romulan commander. Who knew he could act?
2009-06-01
📹 Star Trek full movie HD download 2009 - Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols - USA, Germany. 📀
×